The city of Kennesaw in the state of Georgia has a law in effect dictating that everyone who can legally own a firearm is legally required to own a firearm.
Well, my thought is . . . NAY. Just as I am unhappy when the government tries to take away any of our rights, I would be unhappy that the government was trying to force people to be armed, including some people who maybe should not be. - - - Updated - - - I think I heard about this once before and I think I also heard that it was not enforced. Maybe you can fetch a link?
Lots of talk about "rights," and zero talk about the responsibilities of that well regulated militia on this thread. As long as those militiamen understand that they can be called up into service at any time by the government and sent wherever needed (inside the US or otherwise), and that shirking that duty will be treated as desertion and subject to military justice, sure - I'll play along...
10 USC 311 handles calling up, but that's a good point regarding UMCJ. Right now the militia doesn't appear subject to UCMJ. http://www.ucmj.us/about-the-ucmj
No, being forced to, with penalty of a fine if you don't is. Not me causing the problem so why am I "forced" to pay because others can't/won't. Not you causing the problem with the gun control militia route (yes/no), so why can't you pay also. Like I said earlier.....sounds like the same scheme to me. My problems with ObamaCare are not because it was Obama's doing, it's because it sucks for many people that were happy with the doctors they had, the premiums they had, and the deductibles they had. All my payments went up, but my pay per year didn't so I effectively lost money like so many when ObamaCare went online and down the toilet.
Note the part of your post I put in red. Is an appropriate national defense reasonable? The Constitutional intent was to literally have a citizen army composed of all able bodied men within a stated age range, who were literally required to own the appropriate arms (generally a rifle and pistol, but some also owned cannon) and be proficient in their use. When needed, the citizen army would be called to service. Would you rather have a full time massively funded military-industrial-political complex, or a much smaller full time military with a well trained citizenry to call upon when required? And I'll bet the Hawks in DC will be much slower to beat the war drums when their family has to participate. Also remember there is an exception for people who object to owning a firearm. They can forgo the firearm and instead support the people who will be defending their right to sit on the sidelines. - - - Updated - - - I now see it is as you say it is, and I like it.
The requirement should be that militia units be equipped with muskets circa 1783. After all that was good enough for our Founding Fathers why should we be so uppity and expect to be better equipped than our Founding Fathers. In addition to muskets a copy of an 18th century shoukd be required of each malitia member. Militia units must be required drill one weekend a month in the twin green. They shoukd also be required to sing the gospel song " Give me that old time religion, that old time religion it was good enough for my mammy it was good enough for my pappy it's good enough for me. It was good enough for our Founding Fathers , good enough for our Founding mothers it's good enough for me". We need to make America great again and that starts with a well regulated militia. " I don't know but I've been told, My GI issued musket is good as good" Sound off---- one, two, three , four,,,, One, two, three, four! Isn't fake news great!
if the govt. cant limit what types of guns you can own, they also can't order you to buy a certain type of gun. how about a little consistency huh?
There is a company in Ohio that makes a M1 Carbine right exactly to WWII specs wood stock and all. Good price also under a grand. The M1 carbine is a cool gun to plink with. That us the weapon I qualified with in boot camp. Us Air Force types were not given the big guns in boot camp like the Army guys were. Lol
Is there a constitutional right to be unarmed? A link to the law can indeed be found. However it not being currently enforced ultimately means nothing, as it can be enforced at any time. https://www.municode.com/library/ga...ext=#PTIICOOR_CH34CIEM_ARTIIFI_S34-21HEHOMAFI Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms. (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony. (Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09) Beyond such, there are apparently other towns in the united states that have such a law in place. http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/28/5-american-cities-that-require-you-to-own-a-gun/21439364/ - - - Updated - - - Why should any politician have a private security detail armed with anything other than single-shot flintlock pistols?
Willya stop. I know very few people who are afraid of firearms per se, what frightens people are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nuts with firearms. Why gun enthusiasts cannot understand that most of us don't want to arm criminals and dangerous psychopaths is beyond me and most people I know
For those that are ultimately too lazy, or simply unwilling to actually look up Caetano v Massachusetts you now have no legitimate reason to be ignorant of what it says. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf PER CURIAM The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015). The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historicaltradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”. In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason. Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625. For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Read further. Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal. See Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, ยง131J (2014). When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Su(*)preme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are pro(*)tected by the Second Amendment.” 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not. Read even further, and the supreme court specified, in absolute terms, that the "dangerous and unusual" provision of Heller applies only to weapons that are both dangerous and unusual at the same time. One or the other is not enough of a legal basis for prohibition, under any circumstances.
Can you demonstrate that such facts are not understood by second amendment supports? Demonstration beyond opposition to the notion of mandatory background checks for private firearm transfers?
Actually, there's been virtually no talk about rights as it relates to the idea posed in the OP; in fact, the OP is all about the citizens' responsibility for the security of a free state. The proposal in the OP does not enroll anyone in any specific militia, it merely ensures there will be a useful number of people with basic proficiency in firearms that the state and federal militias can draw from. - - - Updated - - - There's no reason to read your post past this point. - - - Updated - - - You do understand this is already illegal and no one wants to change the laws to make it legal -- right?
The militia is a state function. I do agree that the states probably should train militia separate from the National Guard.
It is, but the federal government has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia. The proposal in the OP falls under this power.
I think PMC's also raise a lot of questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company Basically we have corporations raising private para-military groups that are basically mercenaries (although the US is careful not to call them such) that operate under private and government contracts. Are these not militia groups, and if they are, how do these differ from the ad-hoc militias formed by private citizens?
The problem we have with gun control folks is that the laws you propose don't stop criminals and dangerous pschopaths from buying guns. They only are a hindrance to those of us who follow the laws.
Your blind bias is showing again. Nobody wants to arm criminals and psychopaths. Gun banners mistakenly think that gun control will keep arms out of criminals hands, when the facts show all gun control does is make the law abiding population helpless victims. And many gun banners are afraid of firearms. Their entire exposure to firearms is through the tv and movies and gun banner propaganda.
Well, I still disagree that the government should force anyone to own a firearm. It should be a choice to exercise a right.
